Sex sells and Stern magazine is apparently hard up for cash. Don't believe us? Just look at this cover if the Viagra isn't working. Now that is a real attempt to please the million readers and reach-out to the "Bild" pinup crowd.

Seriously though. There is a war in the Middle East and we at Medienkritik expected to see something (shall we say) slightly different on the cover of Germany's most widely read political weekly. The Blue Lagoon was not quite what we had in mind. On the other hand, if you can pull your eyes away from nature's bling-bling for just a moment and look down at the lower-right-hand corner, there is a small subhead about Hezbollah. And to be completely fair, Editor-in-Chief Andreas Petzold, winner of our 2003 anti-Americanism prize, did dedicate most of his weekly editorial to the conflict and the cycle of violence and hatred that he believes it has spurned. Here's a quote:

"It is understandable that the Jewish state, after 58 years of fighting for its existence doesn't want to look on without acting. Nevertheless: If it is most urgently about destroying those rockets-, the real threat to the life of the Israelis-, why must entire sections of Beirut be reduced to rubble and ash? Would have been so dishonorable to trade the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers for a handful of Lebanese.

A handful of "Lebanese?" An interesting choice of words to describe Hezbollah terrorists...

And how can Mr. Petzold ask about civilian casualties when Hezbollah is so obviously using the Lebanese people, (and anyone else they get a hold of - including UN peacekeepers,) as human shields?Does he honestly believe that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians? Petzold's patently false assertion that Israel is destroying entire sectors of Beirut testifies either to his profound ignorance or a perverted belief that Israel is engaged in a campaign to kill innocent women and children.

The fundamental problem with Mr. Petzold's editorial can be identified as what we would call the angry left's cycle of ignorance. Fortunately, not all of us were born yesterday. Some of us actually remember that Israel has attempted to appease and compromise and negotiate and exchange prisoners time and time and time again for decades on end. In exchange, Israelis have gotten suicide bombers, rockets, invasion and international scorn.

And why should we assume that putting another big, wet, UN band-aid on the region will do anything but exacerbate the problem and buy more time for Hezbollah and its supporters in Damascus and Tehran? Perhaps Mr. Petzold and other German media gurus should read what Claudia Rossett recently had to say about past efforts to solve the crisis the multilateral way:

"Hezbollah deliberately provoked this war on July 12 by kidnapping Israeli soldiers inside Israel’s borders, and has been launching rockets into Israel from a massive arsenal that under U.N. writ Hezbollah is not even supposed to possess. That was not the deal under which Israel, in keeping with U.N. wishes, withdrew entirely from southern Lebanon in 2000. The U.N. promise was that Hezbollah would be defanged and that U.N. peacekeepers would help the Lebanese government reestablish control over Hezbollah-infested terrain inside Lebanon.

Over the past six years, Israel honored its commitment to peace. The U.N. — disproportionately — required in practice no such compliance on the Lebanese side of the border. The “peacekeepers” of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, called UNIFIL, sat passively looking on, costing about $100 million a year and doing nothing to stop Hezbollah from trucking in weapons, digging tunnels, and running the armed protection rackets with which it has kept a grip on swathes of Lebanon, including the southern border with Israel, parts of the Bekaa, and southern Beirut. Before the current fighting, UNIFIL had most recently distinguished itself for a run-of-the-U.N.-mill financial swindle involving a contingent of Ukrainian peacekeeping troops. On that subject, whatever laws might have been violated, the U.N. has — as usual with U.N. scams — refused to release details. Now, UNIFIL peacekeepers have been reduced to casualties of the crossfire, while Secretary-General Kofi Annan urges that we take what the U.N. has done wrong already, and do more of it.

With its false promises, and disproportionate deals for “peace,” the U.N. left Israel exposed to the attack that has now come, and a war that Israel did not seek. Like America when attacked by al Qaeda, Israel has been fighting back. In response, U.N. officials have come close to trampling each other in their stampede to the media microphones — not to admit the U.N.’s own failure to stop Hezbollah, not to apologize for administering a phony peace that incubated this miserable war, but to denounce Israel."

Unfortunately, in the German media world, and particularly at publications like Stern, there is remarkably little criticism of the UN (particularly when compared to criticism of the US), even in cases of massive incompetence, bungling impotence and outrageous waste. How many Germans know that it cost $100 million to support UNIFIL? How many critical articles have been run in German media on the performance of UNIFIL and the expansion of Hezbollah over the past several years?It is this chronic bias and unwillingness to explain historic context that has strongly contributed to Germans' rejection of Israeli actions. So it shouldn't really surprise anyone that 75% of Germans polled find Israel's actions "inappropriate" while only 12% see them as "appropriate" and 13% don't know.Opinions like those expressed recently by Charles Krauthammer are frighteningly rare in German and European media. The resulting views speak for themselves.

UPDATE: The Qana tragedy is playing predictably in the German media. Almost no one is asking why Hezbollah chooses to place rocket launchers and other military assets in cities full of vulnerable civilians. Once again, Israel is being handed the majority of the blame. This article in the SZ (in German) is a typical example in which the author completely fails to acknowledge Hezbollah's cynical, reckless use of civilians as human shields. There are many more articles with much the same tone. The German blog No Blood For Sauerkraut has a more balanced take (in German).

Wal-Mart pulls out of Germany. Their business model simply doesn't fit into the German retail landscape. One of the main reasons:

The company initially installed American managers, who made some well-intentioned cultural gaffes, like offering to bag groceries for customers (Germans prefer to bag their own groceries) or instructing clerks to smile (Germans, used to brusque service, were put off). (Source: NYT)

Never, ever smile at a German. Know thy customer!

Next time Wal-Mart enters the German market, they should search for employees more adapted to the wishes of the local customer.

BTW, this is probably the underlying factor for the dislike of the German media for George W. Bush: the guy simply smiles too much! For Germans, that's more like it! (Or this one...)

(Here's another submission for your enjoyment by Bob Skinner. German bloggers are welcome to submit articles as well. Want to get noticed on DMK? Have something to say about German media or German-American relations? Click here...)

UPDATE: We've received an objection from Financial Times Deutschland Op-Ed editor Christian Schuette. He writes that Bob is incorrect to question the paper's report on Afghani brothels serving US troops and contractors and insists that the reporter in question, Britta Petersen, made use of reliable local sources. He challenges Bob's reliance on Google to reject Ms. Petersen's claims. What's your take? Comment here...

American liberals frequently tell the rest of us that we need to be more like those Europeans. It's not clear, though, how many of these liberals actually read European papers, and whether that would change their take on things. Over the last few months I've translated a couple of dozen editorials from German-language papers for Watching America and I can offer a few observations on the approach of the some of the German, Austrian, and Swiss papers. First: They make stuff up. An Op Ed in Financial Times Deutschland says:

"Another thing that burned down on May 29 was one of the many brothels which are operated by Americans for their own mercenaries and security forces, and whose existence in Kabul is an open secret."

I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but Mr. Google and I both think this is bogus.

(And now, the first of several submissions we have received thus far. We plan to post more in the coming days. Here are two articles by Karin Quade of the blog anti-anti-americanism. Enjoy!)

Who is to blame for inaction – the US or the UN? (By Karin Quade)

Israel is under attack: Hundreds of rockets have been fired into Israel within the last few days, Israeli soldiers have been killed or kidnapped on sovereign Israeli territory, Israeli civilians have died. To put an end to this, the Israeli army is targeting Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon. Tragically, the terrorists attacking Israel are taking the Lebanese as hostage, they are even launching rockets from civilian homes. So, although Israel is doing everything to prevent casualties amongst civilians, the unscrupulous behaviour of Hezbollah makes this almost impossible.

Now there are people in Europe who say that the Israeli reaction is disproportionate. But what do these people expect Israelis to do?

For those of you who can read German, a visit to "Lizas Welt" is an absolute must. This relatively new blog has an outstanding analysis of the current situation in the Middle East and the reaction in the German media. Check it out.

I know, there have been denials, but I have this gut feeling that even Islamist terrorists ultimately understand the side effects of severe punishment.

Anyway, if proven true, diplomacy - so cherished by the German media - definitely wasn't the root cause for these headlines...

Addendum from Ray: SPIEGEL ONLINE has finally published its pro-Israel "token" commentary by Matthias Kuentzel. A must read (in German). (Hattip: Hans Ze Beeman). Politically Incorrect points to a poll taken several days ago showing that 75% of Germans find Israel's actions "inappropriate" while only 12% see them as "appropriate" and 13% aren't sure. Is that any surprise considering the tone of the German media?

(Via Politically Incorrect) The lady in the "EU limo" says: "How disproportionate! They won't do anything if you leave them in peace! Total overreaction! You are only going to make them wilder!" The cartoon title (at the bottom) says: Theoretical know-it-all-ism from a climate-controlled backseat.

It would be interesting to see how Germans (and other Israel critics) would react if we huddled them all into a piece of land the size of New Jersey, surrounded them with enemies loudly calling and working for their utter destruction, subjected them to regular bus and subway bombings and kidnappings and rocket attacks, and then had the rest of the international community repeatedly tell them how wrong they were to defend themselves. Maybe a few more might find Israel's actions "appropriate" with the shoe on the other foot. It certainly is easy to criticize from the relative comfort of a European armchair...

This is a letter from a young Israeli soldier to his mother. I got a copy of it as a member of Naomi Ragen's e-mail list.

I strongly urge you to read the letter to get an understanding of the Israeli-Hezbollah-Hamas conflict. I was particularly impressed by the description of Israel's "don't shoot first" policy:

Do you know why so manysoldiers die in the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon? Not because the enemy's army is better, they are not even close to the IDF. We have better equipment, more equipment, better training, so how is it that soldiers are kidnapped and killed? That's a good question. It is because the left and the international community is keeping such a close look, and bias toward Israel's defense tactics, that are (sic!) hands are tied in defending ourselves properly. We take so many dangerous steps in order to protect civilians, that in return, we are killed and kidnapped. Did you know that at the Lebanon Border for the last ten years, because of "International" pressure, that if you see 500 Hizbollah terrorists with AK47's and rocket launchers and missiles coming up to the actual border fence, 50 feet from the Israel soldiers, 50 feet from Israel's soil, that the IDF cannot fire unless they fire first! They can aim, set up shop 50 feet from you, but until they fire and shoot at you, the Israeli soldiers cannot defend themselves. Is that logical? No, it is insane. The only reason why so many Israeli's both civilian and military are dying is explicitly the fault of the International Leftist agenda. The Left likes to see the minority win, even if it is Hamas and Hezbollah.

Again, you have to read the whole letter.

Notes from Zachary Taylor a soldier in the Nachal Haredi Unit, sent to me (Naomi Ragen) by his mother.

People jump to conclusions about the Israeli leadership and their strategies concerning Gaza and Lebanon. First of all, do not believe anything you read in a foreign newspaper or even half of the Israeli ones about this current situation.

For example, just a few months ago an Arab Family in Gaza was killed on a beach. The Palestinians said the Israelis did the killing, as did international media. After research it was shown that in no way whatsovever was it an Israeli...

As John Rosenthal in his TCS article "Cowboys in Deutschland" observes, when George Bush visited Germany in May 2002 death wishes of the German left (published in the weekly ZEIT) were in plentiful supply:

... in a letter addressed to "Dear George," Christoph Schlingensief, the darling of German "alternative" theatre and creator of artistic "happenings," admitted to having "played with the idea of quite simply blowing you up at our next meeting."

A hundred thousand demonstrators showed up to stamp Bush as "Terrorist #1". (BTW, John reminds us that at the time of this display of German Bush bashing the Iraq invasion was still 10 months away.)

Now, at Bush's mid July 2006 visit to Germany, things were much more amicable. Angela Merkel, rather than Gazprom employee Gerhard Schroeder greeted the American president, and far fewer demonstrators - a few hundred at best - were at hand. And, as John reports, even ZEIT adopted conciliatory, albeit arrogant, tones:

... long-time Zeit co-editor Josef Joffe wrote that Angela Merkel was "meeting a President who had lost his illusions and learned that democratic ideals and strategic interests are two different things.... The muscular unilateralism is now a thing of the past -- and no wonder. There is no weighty interest that does not require friends or at least partners."

Merkel clearly supported Bush's position on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, even though the New York Times (surprise!) interpreted her stance somewhat differently. In any case, Schroeder's confidant, Foreign Minister Steinmeier, made sure that the ambiguity of German politics is still alive and well.

In close competition for the dumbest assessment of Hezbollah's Nasrallah: Kofi Annan and Aluf Benn from the Israeli daily Haaretz.

We have to work with the Lebanese government to extend its authority over southern Lebanon... The Lebanese government has indicated to me that already they've put in a thousand troops, and others will follow as the UN also moves down, and we will re-enforce the UN troops on the ground... Let me say that Hizbullah... is a player in the south of Lebanon... I did tell Mr. Nasrallah that Hizbullah exercised restraint, responsibility and discipline after the withdrawal, and that we would want to see that continue, and I'm sure from the indications that he gave me that he intends to do it.

We need a NasrallahBy Aluf Benn, July 6, 2006(...) The moment Hezbollah took control over the south of the country and armed itself with thousands of Katyushas and other rockets, a stable balance of deterrence was created on both sides of the border. The withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces from Lebanon in 2000 was made possible not only because of the daring of then prime minister Ehud Barak, but also thanks to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who conducts a policy of "one law and one weapon" on the other side.

Nasrallah hates Israel and Zionism no less than do the Hamas leaders, Shalit's kidnappers and the Qassam squads. But as opposed to them - he has authority and responsibility, and therefore his behavior is rational and reasonably predictable. Under the present conditions, that's the best possible situation. Hezbollah is doing a better job of maintaining quiet in the Galilee than did the pro-Israeli South Lebanese Army. (Source)(emphasis added)

These guys are just lucky that ARD's anti-Israeli Bettina Marx hasn't entered the competition yet. She would beat them hands down...

Atlantic Review reports that there were far fewer protesters at the latest Bush visit to Stralsund, Germany than at Mainz in 2005. We want to discuss the factors behind the dramatic drop in the intensity of the protests. What factor(s) do you think played the most important role?:

Stralsund is harder to get to than Mainz

German-American relations have improved since Merkel took office

Israel and Lebanon are the center of attention

Better event planning and police protection

The German media is less focused on bashing the USA

The issues that divide Germany and the USA are no longer as prominent

The World Cup has left Germans in a good mood

It's too hot to protest

The angry left has other issues on its front burner

Bush has softened and is now a "multilateralist" diplomat

Deep down, Germans really love cowboys

Other factors...

Our comments section is open. Feel free to rank the factors above from "1" to "12" with a "1" representing the strongest factor and a "12" representing the weakest factor. We may post particularly eloquent comments...

SPIEGEL ONLINE's recent interview with Kofi Annan was a true masterpiece of multilateral enlightenment. The Secretary General wasted no time in pointing out that New Yorkers see terrorism as the greatest threat "because of the way the press plays it." Those pesky New Yorkers must not be smart enough to know what is really threatening them. After all, they are buying the media spin and only Kofi seems to know what is truly ailing the planet. Why can't we all be so wise and worldly?

But I digress. The truly stunning aspect of the interview involved one of the questions. Actually, it was more of a statement:

"SPIEGEL: It seems that every US generation in recent history has had to go through the experience of losing a war."

Hmmm. OK, now let's see. Which generations have had to experience losing a war. The baby-boomers had to experience Vietnam. (Scratching head) OK. Now what other "US generation" had to experience losing a war? Did the US lose any other wars...? Are the reporters confusing the US with Germany? This is all so confusing. For what it's worth, this was Kofi's answer:

"Annan: Yes, and it is a bit sad to put it that way. One has to learn from history. Quite frankly, it is almost impossible to have a sense of vision without a sense of history. If history is learned, then it doesn't have to repeat itself over generations."

Indeed. One does have to learn from history. Lesson One for RetardedIntellectually-Challenged German Journalists: Recent US Military History.

Endnote: One of the interviewers was Georg Mascolo, the same guy who thinks Alexandria, Virginia is deep in the heart of conservative, red-state America. On another note, here is an interesting article on anti-Americanism in German media by Josef Joffe. Parts of Joffe's work were so good that we put them on our sidebar.

Jeffrey Gedmin has published another one of his brilliant attacks against the hypocrisy of the left in Germany's daily WELT. We are glad to have obtained the right to publish the original English version of his commentary.

Responding on Two FrontsBy Jeffrey Gedmin (Tel Aviv)

Sitting in a beach front restaurant at the port here and life seems so normal, innocent really. The warm summer breeze, music, fresh fish, scores of young people walk the board walk. And on this night, every few minutes, military planes fly by, flying north. Israel is at war again.

I'm learning a lot about rockets at the moment. The Katyuscha has a range of 30-40 km. The Fajr 3 and Fajr 5 can sail some 70 km. When I arrived, I was briefed that Hezbollah may also have a number of longer range Iranian missiles with a reach of about 135 km. That would make Tel Aviv a possible target, I thought. Two days ago Israel found and destroyed an Iranian Zelzal missile with a range of 160 kilometers.

As always, I'm a little bit one-sided. A frequent narrative in much international media goes like this: Hezbollah kidnaps two Israeli soldiers. Israel seeks revenge by bombing the hell out of Lebanon. A Süddeutsche Zeitung headline read, "Israel attack on two fronts." Henryk Broder, writing in Der Spiegel, asked why the paper wouldn't have written that Israel has been "responding" on two fronts. That would be honest.

I feel pretty confident about my narrative. Start with Gaza, which is where this started. Israel withdraws. Palestinians heave 600 rockets over the border over the next six months. They elect Hamas, whose raison etre is to annihilate the Jewish state. Hamas

Source: Cox & Forkum (Cartoon is not part of Jeffrey Gedmin's commentary in WELT)

ups the ante by kidnapping an Israeli soldier. A journalists friend says to me, a liberal-minded fellow here, "If you keep poking a lion, sooner or later you're going to get swatted by a big paw." Now Lebanon. Before nabbing those Israeli soldiers, Hezbollah had started to fire their own rockets into